Supprimer un(e) opportunité

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explicitly states 'Action irréversible' (irreversible action) and describes confirmation behavior when the MCP client supports elicitation, adding context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which the description aligns with.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact, with two sentences covering purpose, irreversibility, and confirmation behavior. However, the Args block is redundant with the schema, making it slightly less tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, the destructive consequence, and the confirmation mechanism. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described, and the parameter is fully covered by the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents the id parameter with a pattern and description, and schema coverage is 100%. The description's Args section merely restates 'Identifiant de l'entité à supprimer', adding no additional semantic meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Supprime un(e) opportunité de BoondManager' (Delete an opportunity from BoondManager), using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boond_opportunities_get, create, update, and search.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria. It only warns about irreversibility and confirmation behavior, which is behavioral rather than usage context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.